indclude notnames bn, etc., in English

indclude notnames bn, etc., in English

convert-ly any use of [a-g]n as a variable

[pkx166h, 2014-08-25 07:28:14]

Excuse my ignorance, is this going to need any extra documentation or perhaps a
changes.tely entry?

[Jean-Charles, 2014-08-25 09:17:54]

If I'm not mistaken, this patch *changes* every natural pitch in English instead
of just adding or including a variant for "natural".

Since this will modify what is in place since more than 15 years, it is
essential to document it, both in "changes" and over the documentation.

Too bad, I prefer English to French because "g" is much less typing than "sol",
and have always sung "mi" and "si" even when flattened or "fa" even when
sharpened…

[Trevor Daniels, 2014-08-25 10:13:52]

On 2014/08/25 09:17:54, Jean-Charles wrote:
> If I'm not mistaken, this patch *changes* every natural pitch in English
instead
> of just adding or including a variant for "natural".
> 
> Since this will modify what is in place since more than 15 years, it is
> essential to document it, both in "changes" and over the documentation.
> 
> Too bad, I prefer English to French because "g" is much less typing than
"sol",
> and have always sung "mi" and "si" even when flattened or "fa" even when
> sharpened…

I think you're mistaken.  In the original file the unaltered English notenames
were defined twice, and this patch alters just one of them, leaving the other
unchanged.  So it does just add a variant.

Trevor

[Jean-Charles, 2014-08-25 10:56:00]

On 2014/08/25 10:13:52, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> I think you're mistaken.  In the original file the unaltered English notenames
> were defined twice, and this patch alters just one of them, leaving the other
> unchanged.  So it does just add a variant.

Sorry, I did not expand enough!

[Keith, 2014-08-26 03:56:33]

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:28:14 -0700, <pkx166h@gmail.com> wrote:

> Excuse my ignorance, is this going to need any extra documentation or
> perhaps a changes.tely entry?
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/133840043/
>

I read through the documentation and saw no changes except mentioning the
alternative names for bn, etc., just after the alternative spelling 'ases' for
'asas'.

[Trevor Daniels, 2014-08-26 11:13:41]

LGTM, assuming users of English note entry are in favour.

[david.nalesnik, 2014-08-26 12:42:17]

I think this will be helpful to users of English note entry, and why not take
advantage of the duplication for "c", "d", and the like in
scm/define-note-names.scm?

The only difficulty might be that a user might confuse "cn" with an explicit
accidental.  Say, if he/she used it for C in C major.  Possibly there ought to
be a statement in the documentation to that effect.

[dak, 2014-08-26 13:01:26]

On 2014/08/26 12:42:17, david.nalesnik wrote:
> why not take
> advantage of the duplication for "c", "d", and the like in
> scm/define-note-names.scm?

Because it makes for an inscrutable and confusing patch/diff as witnessed by the
reviews here.  This should be done cleanly as two separate commits in order not
to confuse the issue of removing the uncalled-for duplication with providing
aliases.

The resulting two commits would serve separate, _identifiable_ purposes.  Also
the duplication happens at a _different_ location than the original pitch
definition.  It makes much more sense moving the gn definition _right_ next to
the g definition so that people reading the file do not get confused into
thinking that gn is the _only_ available pitch definition because they encounter
it alone at some place in the file.

As a side effect, this reorganization would make the resulting two commits
_independently_ revertable in case this should prove desirable at some point of
time.

So I would strongly urge against "taking advantage" of the existing problem for
mixing its resolution with a different issue better solved separately.

[dan_faithful.be, 2014-08-26 21:25:23]

On Aug 26, 2014, at 07:13 , tdanielsmusic@googlemail.com wrote:

> LGTM, assuming users of English note entry are in favour.

Since you asked, I think having multiple names for the same pitch creates its
own problems.  I have no difficulty using the current names.  If people want a
variant, how about keeping \language “english” what it is and calling this
variant something else?  That will both prevent people from confusingly mixing
the two variants in the same input file and also help explain the situation to a
unfamiliar person reading a snippet written with the new note names.
— 
Dan

[t.daniels_treda.co.uk, 2014-08-26 22:39:27]

Dan, you wrote Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:25 PM


> On Aug 26, 2014, at 07:13 , tdanielsmusic@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>> LGTM, assuming users of English note entry are in favour.
>
>Since you asked, I think having multiple names for the same pitch creates its
own problems.  
> I have no difficulty using the current names.  If people want a variant, how
about keeping 
> \language “english” what it is and calling this variant something else?  That
will both prevent 
> people from confusingly mixing the two variants in the same input file and
also help explain 
> the situation to a unfamiliar person reading a snippet written with the new
note names.

Well, \language "english" already has multiple names for the same pitch.  If you
look at 
NR 1.1.1 Note names in other languages, you'll see that B-flat can already be
written 
as bf or bflat and similarly for sharps.  So adding one more variant doesn't add
much 
to the confusion, if confusion there is.  I've not noticed much confusion caused

by the current variants among \language "english" users on the lists.

Trevor

[Keith, 2014-08-27 08:05:56]

On 2014/08/25 09:17:54, Jean-Charles wrote:
> 
> Too bad, I prefer English to French because "g" is much less typing than
"sol",
> and have always sung "mi" and "si" even when flattened or "fa" even when
> sharpened…

So is there a similar need among French users to have a name for si-bécarre,
so they can distinguish the occasional 'si' foreign to the key, while searching
for places where they mistakenly typed 'si' (while singing "si" at the pitch of
si-bémol) when they wanted 'sib' ?